date:20191008

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL the only one on
>> the list that has actually read Carroll's new book, but he gave an
>> excellent Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics will at
>> least watch that; after all even an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a
>> book is better than no knowledge at all.
>>
>> Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something Deeply Hidden"
>> 
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more rigorous and
> less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay or nay opinion on this. It
> is something to store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum interpretations
> are to my thinking unprovable theoretically and not falsifiable
> empirically.
>


I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick marketing
exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. Too slick by
half.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSFQTGKmKD%2BPLxepCzVmN-o%2B9ikQu54AAg5xvqDcLrq4Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-08 Thread smitra

On 06-10-2019 12:38, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 8:37 PM smitra wrote:

On 04-10-2019 09:10, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 5:03 PM smitra wrote:

The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well

defined

energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the
expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation

value

will
need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is
not
crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft

correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic

models

lead
to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And
because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate
ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an
experiment, a
splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely
located
across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large
amounts
of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of
(effective)
branches increasing.

Where is all this in the Schrodinger equation?

We should start with listing all possibilities:

1) Schrodinger equation is exactly correct, in which case we have to

accept the MWI.

False.

You can try to invoke Bohm theory as a counterexample, but as David
Deutsch has demonstrated, Bohm theory is just the MWI in disguise.

Saibal

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c1694e00e3f0c702d60ed930b386c6c%40zonnet.nl.

Quantum Probability Theory

May 2017 lecture notes:
http://staff.utia.cas.cz/swart/lecture_notes/qua17_05_02.pdf

by Jan Swart [ http://staff.utia.cas.cz/swart/ ]

from http://staff.utia.cas.cz/swart/tea_index.html

Lectures on quantum probability (notes)

*Quantum Probability Theory*

In the summer semester 2017 I have taught Quantum Probability Theory
(NMTP578) at the Department of Probability and Mathematical Statistics
, MFF, Charles University. Here are
the lecture notes
(final
version). (Here are the first
, second ,
third , fourth
, fifth
, sixth
, and seventh
versions of
the lecture notes.)

Here are the exams of June 30th
, July 4th
, and
September
5th , with
answers. Time for these exams was 3 hours. Exercises 2 (d) and 3 (d) of the
exam of Sept. 5 are quite hard; in particular, a complete solution to Ex. 2
(d) cannot be expected within the time frame of the exam.

Here are the Lecture notes from 2013
. Here are the Lecture notes
from 2010 . Here are the Lecture
notes from 2007 . Here is a Summary
of Chapter 5 . Here are
the Exam of June 20, 2013, with solutions
, Exam of June 25, 2008
, Exam of September 18,
2008, with solutions , Exam
of September 30, 2008, with solutions
. Here is the Exam of June
22, 2007, with solutions . Here
are Lecture notes from 2004 from
a similar course taught at Erlangen University.

@philipthrift

Re: Quantum Probability Theory



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 4:03:12 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> May 2017 lecture notes: 
> http://staff.utia.cas.cz/swart/lecture_notes/qua17_05_02.pdf
>
> by Jan Swart [ http://staff.utia.cas.cz/swart/ ]
>
> from http://staff.utia.cas.cz/swart/tea_index.html
>
> Lectures on quantum probability (notes)
>
>
> *Quantum Probability Theory*
>
>
> In the summer semester 2017 I have taught Quantum Probability Theory 
> (NMTP578) at the Department of Probability and Mathematical Statistics 
> , MFF, Charles University. Here are 
> the lecture notes 
>  (final 
> version). (Here are the first 
> , second 
> , third 
> , fourth 
> , fifth 
> , sixth 
> , and 
> seventh  
> versions 
> of the lecture notes.)
>
>
> Here are the exams of June 30th 
> , July 
> 4th , 
> and September 5th 
> , with 
> answers. Time for these exams was 3 hours. Exercises 2 (d) and 3 (d) of the 
> exam of Sept. 5 are quite hard; in particular, a complete solution to Ex. 2 
> (d) cannot be expected within the time frame of the exam.
>
>
> Here are the Lecture notes from 2013 
> . Here are the Lecture notes 
> from 2010 . Here are the Lecture 
> notes from 2007 . Here is a 
> Summary 
> of Chapter 5 . Here 
> are the Exam of June 20, 2013, with solutions 
> , Exam of June 25, 2008 
> , Exam of September 18, 
> 2008, with solutions , Exam 
> of September 30, 2008, with solutions 
> . Here is the Exam of 
> June 22, 2007, with solutions . 
> Here are Lecture notes from 2004  
> from 
> a similar course taught at Erlangen University.
>
>
>
> @philipthrift
>


(pg. 35)

The interpretation of quantum mechanics is notoriously difficult, and the 
interpretation we have just given is not undisputed. There is an extensive 
literature on the subject in which innumerably many different 
interpretations have been suggested, with the result that almost everything 
one can say on this subject has at some point been fiercely denied by 
someone. ... To add to the confusion, it is tradition to call the 
probability law ρ a ‘mixed state’, even though it is conceptually something 
very different from the states ω of classical probability.

@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/38590ce5-381c-4315-afa0-cd3d50b13b66%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:10:33 AM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL the only one 
>>> on the list that has actually read Carroll's new book, but he gave an 
>>> excellent Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics will at 
>>> least watch that; after all even an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a 
>>> book is better than no knowledge at all.
>>>
>>> Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something Deeply Hidden" 
>>> 
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more rigorous and 
>> less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay or nay opinion on this. It 
>> is something to store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum interpretations 
>> are to my thinking unprovable theoretically and not falsifiable 
>> empirically. 
>>
>
>
> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick marketing 
> exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. Too slick by 
> half.
>
> Bruce 
>


It's like watching an indoctrinated religious missionary.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/210a74b4-1965-4789-be26-329f7910ae29%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:10 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick
> marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman.
> Too slick by half.*
>

So you haven't read a word of Carroll's book and you even stopped watching
his talk about his book after a few minutes, and you did so not because you
could find anything substantively wrong with the talk but because you just
didn't like his style for some vague reason; but none of that prevents you
from saying with great authority that the book is all wrong and writing
ponderous screeds damning his book to hell.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3EL2qvvSa3vG8P4RvptV115%3DDStg7A7nibaYB4mJwdPg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:39, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:25 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish  > > wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, Oct 05, 2019 at 09:05:49PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 7:15 PM Bruno Marchal  >> > wrote:
> >> 
> >>On 5 Oct 2019, at 07:14, Bruce Kellett  >> > wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 1:10 AM Bruno Marchal  >> > wrote:
> >> 
> >>According to the above non-separable wave function, that means that 
> >> Bob
> >>gets only the ket |->,
> >> 
> >> 
> >>That is vague. It means that Alice will access to the Bobs who get that
> >>state, and never access to the Bobs who did not got it.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Exactly. And this is what you are required to explain. Just stating it as a
> >> fact is not an explanation. 
> > 
> > ISTM that this follows from the Born rule - the probability of both
> > Alice and Bob seeing the same spin is strictly zero.
> > 
> > I understand that there are problems in deriving the Born rule from
> > the MWI, and that derivations that purport to do so (such as mine) are
> > contentious (to put it politely :)). So it doesn't exactly solve the
> > problem, but maybe directs us toward where the solution lies.
> > 
> > What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a
> > nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite
> > unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were,
> > for the MWI.
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> It is not an indirect argument for MWI because MWI has not provided an 
> alternative explanation.

I don’t believe in MW “I”. MW is just quantum mechanics without collapse. There 
is just one unitary evolution, which computable, even linear, and always local 
in the Hilbert space. The violation of Bell’s inequality shows the 
inseparability, or non-locality, but there is no FTL influence. It is up in the 
believer in FTL influence to shows them, but as you told me that you don’t 
believe in FTL influences, I am not sure what we are discussing. Now, I do 
believe that QM-with-collapse does introduce FTL influence, even in the case of 
looking to one particle just “diffusing”. If there is a physical collapse of 
the position of the particle, it has to be instaneous.

> We might all reject FTL as implausible. But what are you proposing to replace 
> it? Magic??

OK. We reject all FTL. You might think that some FTL remains in the MWI, but 
just the argument given by Price (although not as general as it could be) shows 
why such FTL are just local apparence in the branches where all resulting Bobs 
and Alices find themselves into.

We might interpret the wave differently. Of course, from what I have proven 
about “digital mechanism”, I expect physics describing only the physical 
reality we access to. The wave is epistemic, not ontic. I think that your 
problem is that you take the notion of “world” too much seriously.

I am ultra-busy, as I teach everyday, (+ a paper to finish), so might be slow 
down a little bit. I have just never seen any paper showing that in the 
QM-without-collapse, FTL influence exist. Of course, I do not believe that when 
Alice makes a measurement, the entire universe is changed. All interactions are 
local, and the singlet state only ascribes to Alice and Bob to the histories 
were the particle have been correlated, locally at the start. But they do not 
know in which “worlds” they re, and all worlds are always realised.

Bruno

> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTZRH-THV_%2B_45yUZJQ%2BR6uv2Khs8ibHfME1x%2BCqksL5A%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E149E31B-6625-40B2-BFC6-3357AB15FF92%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 6 Oct 2019, at 12:46, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>>> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have been 
>>> talking about:
 |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
>>> This refers to two spacetime locations;
>> 
>> You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I 
>> disagree with this interpretation since the start.
>> 
>> For goodness sake, Bruno, what are you talking about? You cannot 'disagree 
>> with this interpretation'. That is what the singlet state when the particles 
>> have separated means.
> 
> Meaning = interpretation. There is no consensus how to interpret the wave, 
> even among “many-worlders”. Nothing is obvious here.
> 
> I think that everyone (except you, perhaps), agrees that this equation for 
> the entangled singlet state refers to two particles that might have arbitrary 
> space-time separation. This might not be obvious to you, but it is to 
> everyone else.


Deustch interpret it as a continuum of worlds, like any quantum state, and they 
differentiate locally, as shown by using the Heisenberg picture.

IMO, it is you who are special when thinking that the interpretation of the 
wave is obvious.

Keep in mind that I never really leave Mechanism, so physics is not a science 
which describes reality, only the relatively observable.

Bruno



> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRX4X7NFOkhLvJaEyY8VLHY90m0cc_P8G9z2de1iSYyfA%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/752BE4F5-0522-4195-AAE8-1BBA773F89B6%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:11 PM John Clark  wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:10 AM Bruce Kellett 
> wrote:
>
> *> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick
>> marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman.
>> Too slick by half.*
>>
>
> So you haven't read a word of Carroll's book and you even stopped watching
> his talk about his book after a few minutes, and you did so not because you
> could find anything substantively wrong with the talk but because you just
> didn't like his style for some vague reason; but none of that prevents you
> from saying with great authority that the book is all wrong and writing
> ponderous screeds damning his book to hell.
>

I think you are over-reacting somewhat, John. I haven't read Carroll's book
because it is not available in Australia yet. I watched most of the
lecture, and was put off by the style and the lack of substance.

I don't know what ponderous screeds from me that you have been reading that
damn Carroll's book -- I haven't written anything about his book, although
I have written at length about the troubles with MWI, and the failure of
MWI to provide an adequate local causal account of the violation of the
Bell inequalities. Now, maybe Carroll has a convincing explanation of this.
If he has, and you have read it in his book, then please reproduce it here
so that we can all share in this insight.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRgcWx2LrYpvN04HEDn7s34mUocx-0_Y%3D_t8KbOUAF3zg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is


> On 6 Oct 2019, at 13:03, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the MWI 
>> only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world where 
>> Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice finds 
>> “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
> 
> 
> OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a 
> local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will 
> suffice at this point.
> 
> 
> Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time to 
> bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin 
> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the 
> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI.
> 
> The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no non-local 
> influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just answer the 
> question.
> 
> 
>> Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI 
>> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These 
>> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is 
>> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all. 
>> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still 
>> have not come up with any credible explanation.
> 
> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper, and it is 
> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach.
> 
> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not successful 
> in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just reproduce the 
> standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced that these papers 
> give a fully local explanation for the violation of the Bell inequalities, 
> then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on what, exactly, we 
> are talking about.


When Alice and Bob are separated, even from just one centimetre, then it makes 
no sense to claim that they are in the same world. Alice and Bob can a priori 
find non correlated results, but they will met only their corresponding Alices 
and Bobs. 

The “fully local explanation” is known by everybody: it is the Schroedinger 
equation. If you simulate the SWE of the system Bob+Alice + their particles, on 
a computer, and you interview the majority of Alice and Bob, who met after the 
experiments, they will agree on the correlation, and on the violation of Bell’s 
inequality, despite we know that everything was local, indeed simulated by a 
Babbage machine. 

Bruno




> 
> Bruce
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRgnvvO9PZGuq8ZR9SLPEmyJ4FuehDK7zch7k0bzhf3Mg%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3F810FED-D208-458B-98D8-8154CC67C3C0%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



> On 6 Oct 2019, at 19:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/6/2019 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the MWI 
>> only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world where 
>> Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice finds 
>> “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
> 
> But being a world is a non-local variable.

I am not sure what this means, but if it means that FTL influences occur 
“physically”, that is one reason more to abandon the concept of “world” or 
“universe”, and QM get closer to what we can expect from digital Mechanism.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/828915a8-e73f-5d88-25a0-d4905bb2ff83%40verizon.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E884212D-26DE-40CF-837D-52F374886E61%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.


> On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:31, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:19:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:08, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 2:21:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 4 Oct 2019, at 20:04, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 8:28:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> 
 On 4 Oct 2019, at 00:53, Philip Thrift > wrote:
 
 
 The question is about quantum many worlds. Not cosmology.
>>> 
>>> Cosmology assumes the quantum at a cosmological scale, and it is where a 
>>> collapse makes the less sense. Who would observe and be responsible for the 
>>> collapse of the universal wave? Belinfante estimates that the 
>>> Copenhagen-von Neuman formulation of QM requires an external god looking at 
>>> the universe, like materialism requires a god selecting a unique 
>>> computation, but that’s no more doing science.
>>> 
>>> François Englert, who worked in quantum cosmology, was very annoyed by the 
>>> collapse problem, and was relieved that it makes sense to just abandon the 
>>> collapse idea.  The collapse is usually not even defined in any 
>>> intelligible sense, and it introduces a duality incompatible with 
>>> Mechanism, but also with the scientific attitude, I would say.
>>> 
>>> With mechanism, there is only one consciousness which differentiates into 
>>> many 1p histories, and they interfere statistically, notably by allowing a 
>>> 1p plural observable and sharable reality.
>>> 
>>> Why to believe in any “world"? 
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Applied sciences 
>>> 
>>>   
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_applied_science#Branches_of_applied_science
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> do not need Many Worlds Interpretation (as far as I can see).
>>> 
>>> If there is no reason to use MWI in applied science, there is no reason to 
>>> consider MWI in science at all.
>> 
>> That leads back to instrumentalist metaphysics, which is the same as “shut 
>> up and calculate”. You don’t need any world, not even one, in that case. 
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It could appear so, but I say it leads to codicalism (between 
>> instrumentalism [strict antirealism] and realism).
> 
> “Codicalism” or even “formalism” necessitates sigma_1 arithmetical realism, 
> which is the only ontology possible when we assume mechanism, but 
> consciousness and matter become phenomenological, and necessitate in 
> principle the whole of the mathematical reality, which is multiple and 
> undefinable (by machines, provably by machine’s too).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> JD Hamkins - https://twitter.com/jdhamkins 
>  - has expanded the definition of 
> "definable" in mathematics.
> 
> Nothing is settled and written on stone tablets, like The Ten Commandments.

No, but once we fix the theory in which we are reasoning, then we cannot change 
the definition, just to claim something different about reality. 
I have not the time to follow the link, but if you think that his change of the 
definition of “definition” is relevant, please provide more explanation. I use 
the rather simple theory of Tarski, where definable means “expressible” in some 
first order logical formula, or expressible through some objects themselves 
definable in some first order theory (finite our recursively enumerable set of 
first-order formula). I am aware of many generalisation, but they are not 
relevant for my point.

Bruno



> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/df9674d6-9a21-4651-9be7-b340b7d79273%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/052DA5D1-A1EE-4BF9-9F3A-914C3FB314E8%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:38 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 13:03, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the
>> MWI only ask that whatever they found will be correlated. In the world
>> where Alice finds “up", Bob will find "down", and in the world where Alice
>> finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But without any FTL action at a distance.
>>
>>
> OK. So what is the explanation for this aspect of MWI? I am asking for a
> local causal physical explanation for the observed facts. Nothing else will
> suffice at this point.
>
>
> Aspect took a long amount of work to ensure that light has not the time to
>> bring the correlation, and as the choice of “Alice”’s direction of spin
>> measurement is arbitrary, unless you bring t’Hooft super determinism, the
>> influence has to be FTL. Not so in the MWI.
>>
>
> The influence is non-local, that does not imply FTL. If there is no
> non-local influence in MWI, how is the observed correlation formed? Just
> answer the question.
>
>
> Well, I have looked at  your "explanations", and at a lot of other MWI
>> so-called explanations, and not one of them has been satisfactory. These
>> "explanations" are either hopelessly vague, or they misunderstand what is
>> required, or, like Wallace, they simply wimp out of any explanation at all.
>> If you can do better, then do it. But despite years of asking, you still
>> have not come up with any credible explanation.
>>
>>
>> It is the same as the one in Price FAQ, or in  Tipler’s paper, and it is
>> coherent with Deutsch-Hayden one, if recatsed in a many histories approach.
>>
>
> And I have, on many occasions, shown that these approaches are not
> successful in eliminating the non-locality. Price and Tipler, indeed, just
> reproduce the standard non-local quantum account. If you are so convinced
> that these papers give a fully local explanation for the violation of the
> Bell inequalities, then reproduce the argument here so that we can agree on
> what, exactly, we are talking about.
>
>
>
> When Alice and Bob are separated, even from just one centimetre, then it
> makes no sense to claim that they are in the same world.
>

Now you are just talking nonsense, Bruno. You are trying to remove all
sense from the idea of a semi-classical world. By doing this, you remove
any possibility for your physics to actually describe our everyday
experience. Do you not meet your wife every morning?

Alice and Bob can a priori find non correlated results, but they will met
> only their corresponding Alices and Bobs.
>

OK. So prove it. Show me, in detail, how it is that non-correlated branches
can exist, but Alice and Bob never experience them. What might that mean?
All Alices meet some Bob or other, and vice versa. There are no unmatched
persons, floating in unmatched 'worlds'.


The “fully local explanation” is known by everybody: it is the Schroedinger
> equation. If you simulate the SWE of the system Bob+Alice + their
> particles, on a computer, and you interview the majority of Alice and Bob,
> who met after the experiments, they will agree on the correlation, and on
> the violation of Bell’s inequality, despite we know that everything was
> local, indeed simulated by a Babbage machine.
>

It is well known that you cannot simulate Bell inequality violating
statistics on a computer without actually simulating the non-local state,
and using quantum mechanics. But when we do this, we can see explicitly
that the correlations originate in the non-local features of the quantum
state. The Schroedinger equation describes local unitary evolution, but
when applied to a non-local state -- a state that refers explicitly to two
non-separable spacetime locations -- then the results are non-local. The SE
does not eliminate the non-locality inherent in the quantum state.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRziFSFpv%2BxXUqVD3%2B1HURxg_fty%3DtiNcvftZMOG%3Dfu3g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:29 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 12:46, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:23 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>> On 5 Oct 2019, at 13:05, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>>
>> Let us start again. Consider the entangled singlet state that we have
>>> been talking about:
>>>
>>> |psi> = (|+>|-> - |->|+>)/sqrt(2).
>>>
>>> This refers to two spacetime locations;
>>>
>>>
>>> You can’t at the start impose your own interpretation. You know that I
>>> disagree with this interpretation since the start.
>>>
>>
>> For goodness sake, Bruno, what are you talking about? You cannot
>> 'disagree with this interpretation'. That is what the singlet state when
>> the particles have separated means.
>>
>>
>> Meaning = interpretation. There is no consensus how to interpret the
>> wave, even among “many-worlders”. Nothing is obvious here.
>>
>
> I think that everyone (except you, perhaps), agrees that this equation for
> the entangled singlet state refers to two particles that might have
> arbitrary space-time separation. This might not be obvious to you, but it
> is to everyone else.
>
>
> Deustch interpret it as a continuum of worlds, like any quantum state, and
> they differentiate locally, as shown by using the Heisenberg picture.
>

Going to the Heisenberg picture does not change anything. The two particles
are still at different spacetime locations so the state is non-local. Even
Deutsch agrees with this.



> IMO, it is you who are special when thinking that the interpretation of
> the wave is obvious.
>
> Keep in mind that I never really leave Mechanism, so physics is not a
> science which describes reality, only the relatively observable.
>


Maybe it is your attachment to 'Mechanism' that is keeping you from
understanding the non-locality of the singlet state.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTNi0nq7SMRvvm_7_%2BLc9WqOrooLZKfOJ%3DewGd_f%2BrPRg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:25 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 10:39, Bruce Kellett  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:25 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 6 Oct 2019, at 02:50, Russell Standish 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > What I do get is Bruno's point that a single world assumption turns a
>> > nonlocal state into FTL "influence", the mechanism of which is quite
>> > unimaginable as you point out. An argument by incredulity, as it were,
>> > for the MWI.
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>
> It is not an indirect argument for MWI because MWI has not provided an
> alternative explanation.
>
>
> I don’t believe in MW “I”. MW is just quantum mechanics without collapse.
> There is just one unitary evolution, which computable, even linear, and
> always local in the Hilbert space.
>

Local or non-local applies to physical 3-space, or space-time -- using the
word for Hilbert space is just a confusion. There are no space-time
intervals in Hilbert space -- the metric is all wrong.

> The violation of Bell’s inequality shows the inseparability, or
> non-locality, but there is no FTL influence. It is up in the believer in
> FTL influence to shows them, but as you told me that you don’t believe in
> FTL influences, I am not sure what we are discussing. Now, I do believe
> that QM-with-collapse does introduce FTL influence, even in the case of
> looking to one particle just “diffusing”. If there is a physical collapse
> of the position of the particle, it has to be instaneous.
>

I don't know what you are talking about. All I am asking of you is that if
you believe that Aspect's results can be explained by local actions in many
worlds, then give me the derivation of the local mechanism.

> We might all reject FTL as implausible. But what are you proposing to
> replace it? Magic??
>
>
> OK. We reject all FTL. You might think that some FTL remains in the MWI,
> but just the argument given by Price (although not as general as it could
> be) shows why such FTL are just local apparence in the branches where all
> resulting Bobs and Alices find themselves into.
>

The trouble is that Price's argument is just the standard non-local
argument from quantum mechanics. He does not make any use of the absence of
collapse, or of 'many worlds'. If you do not agree with this, reproduce the
argument and show how it differs from  the standard quantum argument.

We might interpret the wave differently. Of course, from what I have proven
> about “digital mechanism”, I expect physics describing only the physical
> reality we access to. The wave is epistemic, not ontic. I think that your
> problem is that you take the notion of “world” too much seriously.
>

No, I take the evidence of my experience of the world around me seriously.
And physics is the science of trying to understand this. If you dismiss it
all as mere appearance, then so be it. But the appearances still need to be
explained.

> I am ultra-busy, as I teach everyday, (+ a paper to finish), so might be
> slow down a little bit. I have just never seen any paper showing that in
> the QM-without-collapse, FTL influence exist. Of course, I do not believe
> that when Alice makes a measurement, the entire universe is changed. All
> interactions are local, and the singlet state only ascribes to Alice and
> Bob to the histories were the particle have been correlated, locally at the
> start.
>

But that is the point. Their histories are not correlated *locally* at the
start. The correlations do not originate when the singlet state was
prepared: the correlations arise only after Alice and Bob have made their
measurements. It is their measurement results that are correlated, after
all. And these do no exist before they make the measurements. The trouble
with your attempted account is that the correlated measurements are made at
space-like separations. That is the essential non-locality that you have to
explain. And you have never yet managed to do this. You always revert to
vague mystical hand-waving. Give me the mathematical derivation of the
quantum correlations.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSXYTwS1URHGPsXgKMZ_H3hxyVMNTZ_zNVWOKyQNM7pXg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 6:25:14 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> MW is just quantum mechanics without collapse. 
>
 

> Bruno
>
>
That's what Sean Carroll says, but he doesn't mention or know anything 
about quantum measure theory or quantum probability theory.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a78952ef-3ccb-48e8-8b3f-ecfa136f7b0e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science


> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous
> 
> Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous 
> precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence


Any one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero physical 
evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the question in 
metaphysics.

Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from 
arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as far as 
we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the first person 
under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences today is for 0 
universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, or moralised through 
the universal machine theory of self-reference.

Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for anything 
ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the existence of 
the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is the correct attitude 
if one believe in such a thing. 

Bruno







> 
> Jim Baggott
> @JimBaggott
> 
> ...
> 
> Sean Carroll, a vocal advocate for the Many-Worlds interpretation, prefers 
> abduction, or what he calls ‘inference to the best explanation’, which leaves 
> us with theories that are merely ‘parsimonious’, a matter of judgment, and 
> ‘still might reasonably be true’. But whose judgment? In the absence of 
> facts, what constitutes ‘the best explanation’?
> 
> Carroll seeks to dress his notion of inference in the cloth of respectability 
> provided by something called Bayesian probability theory, happily overlooking 
> its entirely subjective nature. It’s a short step from here to the 
> theorist-turned-philosopher Richard Dawid’s efforts to justify the string 
> theory programme in terms of ‘theoretically confirmed theory’ and 
> ‘non-empirical theory assessment’. The ‘best explanation’ is then based on a 
> choice between purely metaphysical constructs, without reference to empirical 
> evidence, based on the application of a probability theory that can be 
> readily engineered to suit personal prejudices.
> 
> Welcome to the oxymoron that is post-empirical science.
> 
> ...
> 
> Still, what’s the big deal? So what if a handful of theoretical physicists 
> want to indulge their inner metaphysician and publish papers that few outside 
> their small academic circle will ever read? But look back to the beginning of 
> this essay. Whether they intend it or not (and trust me, they intend it), 
> this stuff has a habit of leaking into the public domain, dripping like acid 
> into the very foundations of science. The publication of Carroll’s book 
> Something Deeply Hidden, about the Many-Worlds interpretation, has been 
> accompanied by an astonishing publicity blitz, including an essay on Aeon 
> last month. A recent PBS News Hour piece led with the observation that: ‘The 
> “Many-Worlds” theory in quantum mechanics suggests that, with every decision 
> you make, a new universe springs into existence containing what amounts to a 
> new version of you.’
> 
> ...
> 
> Perhaps we should begin with a small first step. Let’s acknowledge that 
> theoretical physicists are perfectly entitled to believe, write and say 
> whatever they want, within reason. But is it asking too much that they make 
> their assertions with some honesty? Instead of ‘the multiverse exists’ and 
> ‘it might be true’, is it really so difficult to say something like ‘the 
> multiverse has some philosophical attractions, but it is highly speculative 
> and controversial, and there is no evidence for it’? I appreciate that such 
> caveats get lost or become mangled when transferred into a popular media 
> obsessed with sensation, but this would then be a failure of journalism or 
> science writing, rather than a failure of scientific integrity.
> 
> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6c03feca-3d8f-4a20-bc53-de9697dd85a8%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/C817DB0A-CE60-4231-992C-380B6BCE683A%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

2019-10-08 Thread Lawrence Crowell

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 5:42:02 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:12 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> > So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with 
>> you on this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics 
>> to be neat and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the 
>> rest here, to convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what 
>> I was able to follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I 
>> follow Tipler because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 
>> trillion years of dust,
>>
>
I remember reading Tipler's book *Physics of Immortality* and thinking it 
was nuts. He had ideas about hyper-tech beings surviving the collapse of 
the universe beyond the Planck range and so forth and with an asymptote on 
time there is some infinite time. The book though has a nice set of 
appendices that are a decent quick reference on some physics. He did come 
out with something about the cosmology of the Trinity or some such thing. I 
skipped that. I think he has gone off the rails. 

LC
 

>
> I finished reading Tipler's book "The Physics Of Immortality" on Friday 
> March 15 1996 and liked it and I sent a post about it to the Extropian List 
> that same day. At the time, nearly 24 years ago, I said the reason I liked 
> his book was that:
>
> "*Tipler's Omega  Point Theory makes a bunch of predictions, practical 
> predictions that should be able to be tested for in the next 4 or 5 years. 
> Tipler himself states that every one of these predictions must turn out to 
> be correct or the entire theory is dead in the water*."
>
> Well lets see how his predictions turned out"
>
> "* *Tipler predicts that the universe is closed: I think most would say 
> it's probably open, Tipler says they're wrong.* "
>
> It turned out it was Tipler that was wrong and not only was he wrong 
> Tipler was *spectacularly* wrong! The expansion of the universe is not 
> reversing, it's not even slowing down, it is accelerating. 
>
> "* *Tipler predicts that the Higgs boson must be at 220 +- 20 GeV: If 
> he's  correct then when the CERN Large Hadron Collider goes on line in 1999 
> it will find it almost immediately*."  
>
> The Higgs boson wasn't found until 2012, the delay wasn't Tipler's fault 
> but his prediction was dead wrong, the mass of the Higgs boson turned out 
> to be 125.3 +- 0.4 GeV
>
> "** Tipler predicts that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal 
> to 45*" 
>
> Today there is still disagreement over the exact value, some say its 66.9, 
> another group says its 69.8, and another group says its 74.0, and yet 
> another group says its 82.4; but nobody thinks its anywhere near 45.
>
> So what is Tipler up to today? Well...back in 2007 the poor man went a 
> little funny in the head, you know, just a little funny, and he went and 
> did a silly thing; he wrote another book saying we should look for divine 
> DNA on the Shroud of Turin and check for radiation around the tomb of the 
> Blessed Virgin Mary that was caused by an intense beam of neutrinos that 
> must have shot out of the bottom of her feet thrusting her upward into 
> heaven.
>
> John K Clark
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/74fcb018-bd42-4b63-bc09-37134f86a178%40googlegroups.com.

Re: How Many Universes Are There?

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 22:18, Alan Grayson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:14:22 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 3 Oct 2019, at 12:12, Alan Grayson > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 3:39:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Oct 2019, at 20:29, John Clark > wrote:
>>> 
>>> How Many Universes Are There? 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 0.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> You've turned Tegmark upside down,
> 
> That looks intersting, but I don’t know. Maybe you can elaborate. I published 
> my material well before Tegmark, and start from a very different problem (the 
> mind-body problem). 
> When Tegmark send me his Mathematical Hypothesis paper, I suggest him to use 
> the Mechanist hypothesis explicitly to clarify possible ambiguities. What is 
> common is the Mathematicalism, but Tegmark still miss the psychologicalism, 
> or the theologicalism needed to get physics from arithmetic (and arithmetical 
> self-reference).
> 
> From what I've read from secondary sources, Tegmark believes that every 
> mathematical equation has ontological status wrt SOME universe. So according 
> to this pov, there are universes where gravity acts as an inverse cube, and 
> all higher powers of inverse radius. You, OTOH, seem to affirm the view that 
> there is only one "physical" universe, having no ontological status -- like 
> the Matrix in the movie with that name. But quite aside from the ambiguity of 
> what "ontological status" means, I don't see how you can deny those 
> multitudes of other universes which surely seem "computable". AG 

Not really, because the physical appearances, when we assume mechanism, have to 
emerge for all computations, that is why the physical laws have to be unique.

Than entails also that the physical reality is NOT emulable by a Turing 
machine. In arithmetic, the emergence process is related to the first person, 
that no machine can define explicitly, as no machine can know which machine she 
is, nor which computations support her.

If “I” am a machine, more exactly, if my local body is Turing emulable, then my 
consciousness and the material reality are not, although it can be approximated 
by computation, and digital physics (false metaphysically) remains quite 
interesting in physical local applications.

I think that Tegmark has evolved a little bit by not taking all mathematical 
equations, but only the computable one (missing the important universal one 
which are only partial computable. 

> 
> 
> 
>> on his head. But the same core fallacy remains. AG 
> 
> Which one?
> 
> The idea that "computable" implies ontological status, or even a perfect 
> simulation of one, such as in the movie The Matrix. AG

You need only to believe that we can infer Ex(x+3=5) from 2+3=5. There is no 
metaphysics in the arithmetical assumption, only in the "yes doctor”. That is 
metaphysical, even theological. Then the reasoning shows that the physical 
reality has no ontological status: that simply does not exist (when we assume 
that the brain is Turing emulable).

> 
> I say 0 universe since my birth, not because it would be incompatible with 
> Mechanism (which it is), but because I have never seen any evidence for an 
> ontologically real universe.
> 
> What evidence could possibly exist as "evidence" for an ontologically real 
> evidence?

Any evidence is dream-able, But we can have indirect evidences, like Mechanism 
implies apparent indeterminacy, apparent non locality, and apparent non closing 
of matter, and that has been verified from QM, a theory whose evidences are the 
many experiences in physics.

> And if Mechanism just means the brain and nervous system can be replaced with 
> computer chips, I don't see any connection between this hypothesis and the 
> whether the externally appearing universe is "real". AG

Have you study the 8 steps of the UDA? That is the explanation for the 15 years 
old. Ask any question, and if you want we can do the steps one by one. (See for 
example my shirt presentation here: 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

Now, the step 7 requires knowing that the notion of computation is a purely 
arithmetical notion, at the semantic level (which is important because we have 
both that arithmetic contains all the description of computation, but that is 
different from the fact that the arithmetic truth (a non syntactical concept) 
realise those computations.

Bruno 

> 
> I have no doubt that long and deep histories exists, but this requires only 
> assumption in arithmetic.
> 
> Keep in mind that I give a theory (indeed a very simple one: Kxy = x, and 
> Sxyz = xz(yz). All the rest are definitions and theorem (made in that theory).
> 
> Well just to be sure, you need some inference rule, so the entire theory is:
> 
> RULES
> 
> 1) If x = y and x = z, then y = z
> 2) If x = y then xz = yz
> 3) If x = y then zx = zy
> 
> AXIOMS
> 
> 4) Kxy = x

Re: Observation versus assumption

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 11:57, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 4:05 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > Those who critics my work are not member of the National Academy of 
> > Sciences. They are not scientist. 
>  
> And those who praise your work are not members of the National Academy of 
> Sciences either, real scientists ignore your work because your work is so bad 
> it's not even wrong.

The expression “not even wrong”  has been invented by those who want criticise 
String theory without studying it.

It does not apply. Not many scientist are interested in theology, and my 
“opponents” are only people for whom the existence of primary matter (that they 
usually confuse with matter) is a dogma.

And indeed that is a dogma for many since the closure of Plato academy.

But there is no problem with scientist capable of studying the work and to meet 
me. 

And your absurd critics of sets 3, which is not even a critics, as it changes 
all the time the definitions, will not convince me that there is any problem 
there. Then you unwillingness to make a little effort reading some books or 
paper in computer science explains what you continue your method of dismissive 
tricks and rhetorical fraud.

If you believe that there is a physical universe capable of selecting a 
computation in the arithmetical reality, it is your job to explain how that is 
possible. Only you seems to want both mechanism and materialism, which indeed I 
have shown to be incompatible.

It is a it sad because usually, people open to Everett are open to the idea 
that physics might emerge from all computations, and that what is wrong with 
physicalism, is that it is still a dogma, a “religion” in your negative sense 
of the term. 

Bruno 

> 
>   John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3Du_rws_H4Ak2Rcn9mrqsGpQchV3%3D4YNDotdUCKGiVzQ%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/A23EE905-88EE-4835-ACDE-E0D409F7E2E9%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: Observation versus assumption

2019-10-08 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 9:58 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>  *Not many scientist are interested in theology, and* [...]


And that is my cue to say goodnight because nothing intelligent ever
follows.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0SeMSsYWemGKdNjcPeYFS0dSX4QcLs6MCQQAyuz%2B0ehA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread John Clark

on Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 7:36 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

* > I watched most of the lecture, and was put off by the style and the
> lack of substance.*
>

How much of Carroll's talk did you actually watch? If it was more than 90
seconds you'd know it did not lack substance. And I liked his style because
it was crystal clear and he did not do what so many do, explain what he's
going to say, then say it, them explain what he just said; instead Carroll
cuts the crap and just says it.

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0%2BBaCga69LJQe8N%3DAOPUKZHRjyoqACNBgj8BD8_DY8mQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Wave structure of matter

> On 6 Oct 2019, at 15:27, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, October 6, 2019 at 1:39:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 5 Oct 2019, at 15:47, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Saturday, October 5, 2019 at 4:26:44 AM UTC-5, Samiya wrote:
>> Interesting! 
>> Consider the ayaat quoted in this slide:
>> 
>> I suppose next you will say the Koran has a hidden solution to Riemann's 
>> conjecture on the ζ-function. I have met or known Christian who have said 
>> such things about the Bible; all that can be known is in scripture. 
>> 
>> Scriptures work because people can twist them around to say almost anything. 
>> That is how these things work and why they persist. This only talks about 
>> lightning in a way not different from ideas of Thor throwing thunderbolts. 
>> It say nothing of real significance.
> 
> 
> There has been study showing why people extract sense from pure randomness, 
> and even more from any text, when they are motivated to see them there.
> 
> Now I use often the bible to shake a bit the witness of Jehovah, when asking 
> them if PI is equal to 3, as said implicitly in the Bible. Some say “yes”, 
> showing the “authority argument” implicit in such reading.
> 
> Of course the theology of the greeks was dissociated rather clearly from all 
> myth and legend. Only reasoning was accepted, even if motivated by personal 
> feeling or experience.
> 
> Religion is in no text, and concerned the non nameable things, from Cantor 
> collection of all sets, to natural numbers, which cannot be defined (provably 
> so with Mechanism, but also true intuitively when you think about it.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> The brain is a sort of puzzle solving system. We have a compulsion to make 
> sense out of things. We see this with gambling, where people will persist in 
> playing games that have odds weighed in favor of the house. People will drain 
> away their entire savings by running to a casino. Religion is something 
> similar, where believers will spend a lifetime working to make some 
> consistent sense out of a jumble of mythic narratives.

Only because religion/theology has been taken out of science by those who want 
to do easy money with it, as religion is related to the fear of death, which is 
is the easiest to exploit to make money in a fraudulent way. 

If you read the serious theologian, or some who can be both serious and non 
serious (yes some do both, like Pythagorus), and study the line from the 
pre-platonciens (Pythagorus, Parmenides for example) to the official last one, 
Damascius, you will see believers depending their lifetime to make sense of the 
observation versus a possible mathematical reality, only/ There is no mythic 
narratives others than the idea that there is some reality to explore and try 
to understand.

Religion got its bad reputation, because when a new serious theologian appears, 
it has been burned at the stake in a way or another, by people opposing to them 
the dogma.

With mechanism, we get that there is no creator, nor creation, which is a 
problem for all materialist believer, who still want that the brain is a sort 
of machine. Mechanism has been the main tools by the materialists to mock the 
theist or the idealist, or the immaterialist, so it is normal they have some 
difficulties to accept the conclusion that mechanism and materialism finds 
themselves at the antipodes of the conception of reality.

Some people imagine that the platonicians adds something to Aristotle’s 
Universe, and some indeed do that. But there is a line of platoncians who are 
just skeptical about the Universe, and believe that the explanation is simpler 
than we thought, which makes harder for them to explain what we observe, but 
somehow, the progress in mathematics illustrate what they search, and the 
discovery of the universal machine allows us now to make such type of theories 
more precise and testable. And quantum mechanics provides enormous evidence for 
mechanism, provides a simple theory of everything, like the theory below, and 
the theory explains why personal realities develop and get divided into 
sharable and non sharable realities. It notably distinguish clearly the qualia 
from the quanta, and explain their relations, And the quanta part is testable, 
and indeed gives something promising to extend Quantum mechanics in some way.

The fake religion are only the one who claim to know the ontology, and refuse 
to test them. Some are simply materialist and asserts that the physical 
material reality explains everything, some add a designer, but if they claim 
they know; it is sort of fraud (not always conscious). 

The serious people are just searching the solution, and propose refutable 
theories, and that is the scientific attitude, which can be held in *all* 
domains, be it gardening, or theology (in the original greek sense, where it is 
the theory searching for the more economical explanation of most of what os 
observable or not observable (like 1+2=

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous
>
> *Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous 
> precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence*
>
>
>
> Any one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero 
> physical evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the 
> question in metaphysics.
>
> Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from 
> arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as 
> far as we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the 
> first person under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences 
> today is for 0 universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, 
> or moralised through the universal machine theory of self-reference.
>
> Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for 
> anything ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the 
> existence of the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is the 
> correct attitude if one believe in such a thing. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
*x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
(that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical  
theory*.

Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises 
encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may 
be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their 
expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.

@philipthrift

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/251723db-29a3-49ab-9d1b-92f8c234378e%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL the
only one on the list that has actually read Carroll's new
book, but he gave an excellent Google talk about it on Friday
so maybe his critics will at least watch that; after all even
an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a book is better than
no knowledge at all.

Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something
Deeply Hidden"

John K Clark

I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more
rigorous and less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay or nay
opinion on this. It is something to store away in the mental
toolbox. Quantum interpretations are to my thinking unprovable
theoretically and not falsifiable empirically.

I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick
marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil
salesman. Too slick by half.

What do you think he's selling? I think Carroll is a good speaker, a
good popularizer, and a nice guy. I feel fortunate to have him
representing physics to the public. He is not evangelizing for some
particular interpretation and he recognizes that there are alternative
interpretations of QM even though he favors MWI.

Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by
every measure.

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

We might interpret the wave differently. Of course, from what I have
proven about “digital mechanism”, I expect physics describing only the
physical reality we access to. The wave is epistemic, not ontic. I
think that your problem is that you take the notion of “world” too
much seriously.

You tend to think only what is fundamental should be taken "seriously".
But my view is that science's job is to understand the world we
experience and in general this may be quite different from the ontology
of some theory explaining it. So from my standpoint the problem is
explaining "worlds" and given current physical theories that implies
connecting quantum mechanics to experience. If we accept that experience
is brain process and is therefore (c.f. Tegmark) classical this just
means connecting QM to the classical. So what is the QM representation
of a classical "world". In CI it's just a projection onto some result
subspace, where the subspace is already a classical world. So CI just
assumes there's an answer. In Everett's QM that "world" needs an
explanation/definition/construction.

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll: Universe a 'tiny sliver' of all there is

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 4:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 6 Oct 2019, at 19:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
wrote:

On 10/6/2019 1:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

When Alice and Bob are separated, and measure their particles state, the MWI only ask that
whatever they found will be correlated. In the world where Alice finds “up", Bob will
find "down", and in the world where Alice finds “down”Bob will find “up”. But
without any FTL action at a distance.

But being a world is a non-local variable.

I am not sure what this means, but if it means that FTL influences occur
“physically”,
If you don't know what "world" means, then you can't know what
"physically" means either.

I just mean that if you say Alice is in the UP world then that entails
that Alice and Bob are in the |UP DOWN> world which is a non-local thing.

Brent

that is one reason more to abandon the concept of “world” or “universe”, and QM
get closer to what we can expect from digital Mechanism.

Bruno

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
>> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: 
>>>
>>> As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL the only one 
>>> on the list that has actually read Carroll's new book, but he gave an 
>>> excellent Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics will at 
>>> least watch that; after all even an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a 
>>> book is better than no knowledge at all.
>>>
>>> Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something Deeply Hidden" 
>>> 
>>>
>>> John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more rigorous and 
>> less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay or nay opinion on this. It 
>> is something to store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum interpretations 
>> are to my thinking unprovable theoretically and not falsifiable 
>> empirically. 
>>
>
>
> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick marketing 
> exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. Too slick by 
> half.
>
>
> What do you think he's selling?  I think Carroll is a good speaker, a good 
> popularizer, and a nice guy.  I feel fortunate to have him representing 
> physics to the public.  He is not evangelizing for some particular 
> interpretation and he recognizes that there are alternative interpretations 
> of QM even though he favors MWI.
>
> Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by 
> every measure.
>
> Brent
>

Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga 

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga

who can take math and pull out God.

Carroll makes* the big mistake* of a number of physics "popularizers" 
today. He takes the mathematical language of a physical theory (or one 
version* of that theory, as there are multiple formulations of quantum 
theory) and pulls a physical ontology out of his math.

The math is not the territory.

* The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical 
systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics 
include matrix mechanics , 
introduced by Werner Heisenberg 
, and the path integral 
formulation , 
developed chiefly by Richard Feynman 
. Paul Dirac 
 incorporated matrix mechanics 
and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation.

The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of a 
system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the Schrödinger 
equation does not directly say *what**, exactly, the wave function is*. 
Interpretations 
of quantum mechanics 
 address 
questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the 
underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dea3ade4-d2f8-4c98-8225-1ff226bbe7e8%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

2019-10-08 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Tipler, and now Sean Carroll as well? :-) 

-Original Message-
From: Lawrence Crowell 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Tue, Oct 8, 2019 9:28 am
Subject: Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 5:42:02 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:12 PM spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:

> So, PH, I believe, that Frank Tipler the Omega Point dude, agrees with you on 
> this one issue. He seems to be a stickler for everything in physics to be 
> neat and tidy and conformal. This, of course, will cause you and the rest 
> here, to convulse with nausea on this here mailing list. But from what I was 
> able to follow on his vid, he agrees with your contention. For me, I follow 
> Tipler because I loved his reasoning, and an afterlife even after 10 trillion 
> years of dust,

I remember reading Tipler's book Physics of Immortality and thinking it was 
nuts. He had ideas about hyper-tech beings surviving the collapse of the 
universe beyond the Planck range and so forth and with an asymptote on time 
there is some infinite time. The book though has a nice set of appendices that 
are a decent quick reference on some physics. He did come out with something 
about the cosmology of the Trinity or some such thing. I skipped that. I think 
he has gone off the rails. 
LC 

I finished reading Tipler's book "The Physics Of Immortality" on Friday March 
15 1996 and liked it and I sent a post about it to the Extropian List that same 
day. At the time, nearly 24 years ago, I said the reason I liked his book was 
that:
"Tipler's Omega  Point Theory makes a bunch of predictions, practical 
predictions that should be able to be tested for in the next 4 or 5 years. 
Tipler himself states that every one of these predictions must turn out to be 
correct or the entire theory is dead in the water."
Well lets see how his predictions turned out"
"* Tipler predicts that the universe is closed: I think most would say it's 
probably open, Tipler says they're wrong. "
It turned out it was Tipler that was wrong and not only was he wrong Tipler was 
spectacularly wrong! The expansion of the universe is not reversing, it's not 
even slowing down, it is accelerating. 
"* Tipler predicts that the Higgs boson must be at 220 +- 20 GeV: If he's  
correct then when the CERN Large Hadron Collider goes on line in 1999 it will 
find it almost immediately."  
The Higgs boson wasn't found until 2012, the delay wasn't Tipler's fault but 
his prediction was dead wrong, the mass of the Higgs boson turned out to be 
125.3 +- 0.4 GeV
"* Tipler predicts that the Hubble constant must be less than or equal to 45" 
Today there is still disagreement over the exact value, some say its 66.9, 
another group says its 69.8, and another group says its 74.0, and yet another 
group says its 82.4; but nobody thinks its anywhere near 45.
So what is Tipler up to today? Well...back in 2007 the poor man went a little 
funny in the head, you know, just a little funny, and he went and did a silly 
thing; he wrote another book saying we should look for divine DNA on the Shroud 
of Turin and check for radiation around the tomb of the Blessed Virgin Mary 
that was caused by an intense beam of neutrinos that must have shot out of the 
bottom of her feet thrusting her upward into heaven.
John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/74fcb018-bd42-4b63-bc09-37134f86a178%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1799949804.5617132.1570561368560%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous
>>
>> *Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous 
>> precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence*
>>
>>
>>
>> Any one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero 
>> physical evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the 
>> question in metaphysics.
>>
>> Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from 
>> arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as 
>> far as we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the 
>> first person under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences 
>> today is for 0 universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, 
>> or moralised through the universal machine theory of self-reference.
>>
>> Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for 
>> anything ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the 
>> existence of the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is the 
>> correct attitude if one believe in such a thing. 
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
> *x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
> grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
> (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
> ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical  
> theory*.
>
> Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises 
> encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may 
> be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their 
> expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.
>
> @philipthrift
>

It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be 
applied. However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from 
spatial continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG 

>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9d2c5082-2896-4b97-82c1-89a6bdf03d1f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 11:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell
> wrote:

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark
wrote:

As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL
the only one on the list that has actually read Carroll's
new book, but he gave an excellent Google talk about it
on Friday so maybe his critics will at least watch that;
after all even an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a
book is better than no knowledge at all.

Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something
Deeply Hidden"

John K Clark

I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more
rigorous and less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay
or nay opinion on this. It is something to store away in the
mental toolbox. Quantum interpretations are to my thinking
unprovable theoretically and not falsifiable empirically.

I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick
marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil
salesman. Too slick by half.

What do you think he's selling? I think Carroll is a good
speaker, a good popularizer, and a nice guy. I feel fortunate to
have him representing physics to the public. He is not
evangelizing for some particular interpretation and he recognizes
that there are alternative interpretations of QM even though he
favors MWI.

Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and
won by every measure.

Brent

Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga

who can take math and pull out God.

Carroll makes*the big mistake* of a number of physics "popularizers"
today. He takes the mathematical language of a physical theory (or one
version* of that theory, as there are multiple formulations of quantum
theory) and pulls a physical ontology out of his math.

That's why it's called an "interpretation". Every physical theory has
an ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you don't know
how to apply the mathematics. That MWI entails other, unobservable
"worlds" is neither a bug or a feature, it's just one answer to the
measurement problem. If you have a better answer, feel free to state it.

The math is not the territory.

* The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum
mechanical systems and make predictions. The other formulations of
quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics
, introduced by Werner
Heisenberg , and the
path integral formulation
, developed
chiefly by Richard Feynman
. Paul Dirac
incorporated matrix
mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation.

The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function
of a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the
Schrödinger equation does not directly say /*what*/*, exactly, the
wave function is*. Interpretations of quantum mechanics
address
questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the
underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.

Did you write that, or are you quoting without attribution? Anyway it's
common knowledge on this list.

Brent

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous
>>>
>>> *Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous 
>>> precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Any one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero 
>>> physical evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the 
>>> question in metaphysics.
>>>
>>> Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from 
>>> arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as 
>>> far as we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the 
>>> first person under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences 
>>> today is for 0 universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, 
>>> or moralised through the universal machine theory of self-reference.
>>>
>>> Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for 
>>> anything ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the 
>>> existence of the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is the 
>>> correct attitude if one believe in such a thing. 
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>> *x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
>> grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
>> (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
>> ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical  
>> theory*.
>>
>> Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises 
>> encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may 
>> be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their 
>> expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be 
> applied. However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from 
> spatial continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG 
>
>>
>>  
>>
> A traditional calculus alternative that could match the 
"continuity"-appearing  empirical data is fractional/fractal calculus.


*A Tutorial Review on Fractal Spacetime and Fractional Calculus*
International Journal of Theoretical Physics · November 2014
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266398625_A_Tutorial_Review_on_Fractal_Spacetime_and_Fractional_Calculus


@philipthrift 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/eb564e69-abb4-4232-a69e-c2d09a68d7a3%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:40:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/8/2019 11:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: 

 As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL the only one 
 on the list that has actually read Carroll's new book, but he gave an 
 excellent Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics will at 
 least watch that; after all even an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a 
 book is better than no knowledge at all.

 Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something Deeply Hidden" 
 

 John K Clark

>>>
>>> I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more rigorous 
>>> and less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay or nay opinion on this. 
>>> It is something to store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum 
>>> interpretations are to my thinking unprovable theoretically and not 
>>> falsifiable empirically. 
>>>
>>
>>
>> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick marketing 
>> exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. Too slick by 
>> half.
>>
>>
>> What do you think he's selling?  I think Carroll is a good speaker, a 
>> good popularizer, and a nice guy.  I feel fortunate to have him 
>> representing physics to the public.  He is not evangelizing for some 
>> particular interpretation and he recognizes that there are alternative 
>> interpretations of QM even though he favors MWI.
>>
>> Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by 
>> every measure.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga 
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
>
> who can take math and pull out God.
>
> Carroll makes* the big mistake* of a number of physics "popularizers" 
> today. He takes the mathematical language of a physical theory (or one 
> version* of that theory, as there are multiple formulations of quantum 
> theory) and pulls a physical ontology out of his math.
>
>
> That's why it's called an "interpretation".  Every physical theory has an 
> ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you don't know how to 
> apply the mathematics. 
>

What is "an ontology"? Seems to me this is a red herring; no way to find 
evidence that something is real, as opposed to illusionary, unless you 
apply Vic's claim; it's "real" if it kicks back! Does S's equation kick 
back? Depends on who you talk to, unlike EM waves. Real or not, S's 
equation can be used for calculatons. Doesn't matter what its ontological 
status is. AG 

> That MWI entails other, unobservable "worlds" is neither a bug or a 
> feature, it's just one answer to the measurement problem.  If you have a 
> better answer, feel free to state it.
>
>
>
> The math is not the territory.
>
>
> * The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical 
> systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics 
> include matrix mechanics , 
> introduced by Werner Heisenberg 
> , and the path integral 
> formulation , 
> developed chiefly by Richard Feynman 
> . Paul Dirac 
>  incorporated matrix mechanics 
> and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation.
>
> The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of 
> a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the Schrödinger 
> equation does not directly say *what**, exactly, the wave function is*. 
> Interpretations 
> of quantum mechanics 
>  address 
> questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the 
> underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.
>
>
> Did you write that, or are you quoting without attribution?  Anyway it's 
> common knowledge on this list.
>
> Brent
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ed9d040a-9853-4e53-9ddc-ad7683aead2f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/8/2019 11:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: 

 As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL the only one 
 on the list that has actually read Carroll's new book, but he gave an 
 excellent Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics will at 
 least watch that; after all even an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a 
 book is better than no knowledge at all.

 Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something Deeply Hidden" 
 

 John K Clark

>>>
>>> I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more rigorous 
>>> and less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay or nay opinion on this. 
>>> It is something to store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum 
>>> interpretations are to my thinking unprovable theoretically and not 
>>> falsifiable empirically. 
>>>
>>
>>
>> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick marketing 
>> exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. Too slick by 
>> half.
>>
>>
>> What do you think he's selling?  I think Carroll is a good speaker, a 
>> good popularizer, and a nice guy.  I feel fortunate to have him 
>> representing physics to the public.  He is not evangelizing for some 
>> particular interpretation and he recognizes that there are alternative 
>> interpretations of QM even though he favors MWI.
>>
>> Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by 
>> every measure.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga 
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
>
> who can take math and pull out God.
>
> Carroll makes* the big mistake* of a number of physics "popularizers" 
> today. He takes the mathematical language of a physical theory (or one 
> version* of that theory, as there are multiple formulations of quantum 
> theory) and pulls a physical ontology out of his math.
>
>
> That's why it's called an "interpretation".  Every physical theory has an 
> ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you don't know how to 
> apply the mathematics.  That MWI entails other, unobservable "worlds" is 
> neither a bug or a feature, it's just one answer to the measurement 
> problem.  If you have a better answer, feel free to state it.
>
>
>
> The math is not the territory.
>
>
> * The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical 
> systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics 
> include matrix mechanics , 
> introduced by Werner Heisenberg 
> , and the path integral 
> formulation , 
> developed chiefly by Richard Feynman 
> . Paul Dirac 
>  incorporated matrix mechanics 
> and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation.
>
> The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of 
> a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the Schrödinger 
> equation does not directly say *what**, exactly, the wave function is*. 
> Interpretations 
> of quantum mechanics 
>  address 
> questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the 
> underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.
>
>
> Did you write that, or are you quoting without attribution?  Anyway it's 
> common knowledge on this list.
>
> Brent
>



That's from Wikipedia again (same quote from the Schrödinger equation 
article posted several times before). That " it's common knowledge on this 
list" doesn't appear that way at all, where an undisputed catechism is 
assumed on what is real (QM-wise).

I just don't see how Many Worlds ontology tells us "how to apply the 
mathematics": We don't observe a bunch of worlds, so how can it be applied?

Path-integral methods are already used extensively in computational quantum 
mechanics CQM) and applied in materials science and other application 
areas. So we know they are useful. 

Where are the many-world methods used in CQM.

@philpthift   

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:58:04 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:40:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/8/2019 11:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell <
>>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: 
>
> As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL the only one 
> on the list that has actually read Carroll's new book, but he gave an 
> excellent Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics will at 
> least watch that; after all even an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of 
> a 
> book is better than no knowledge at all.
>
> Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something Deeply Hidden" 
> 
>
> John K Clark
>

 I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more rigorous 
 and less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay or nay opinion on this. 
 It is something to store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum 
 interpretations are to my thinking unprovable theoretically and not 
 falsifiable empirically. 

>>>
>>>
>>> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick 
>>> marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. 
>>> Too slick by half.
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you think he's selling?  I think Carroll is a good speaker, a 
>>> good popularizer, and a nice guy.  I feel fortunate to have him 
>>> representing physics to the public.  He is not evangelizing for some 
>>> particular interpretation and he recognizes that there are alternative 
>>> interpretations of QM even though he favors MWI.
>>>
>>> Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by 
>>> every measure.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga 
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
>>
>> who can take math and pull out God.
>>
>> Carroll makes* the big mistake* of a number of physics "popularizers" 
>> today. He takes the mathematical language of a physical theory (or one 
>> version* of that theory, as there are multiple formulations of quantum 
>> theory) and pulls a physical ontology out of his math.
>>
>>
>> That's why it's called an "interpretation".  Every physical theory has an 
>> ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you don't know how to 
>> apply the mathematics. 
>>
>
> What is "an ontology"? Seems to me this is a red herring; no way to find 
> evidence that something is real, as opposed to illusionary, unless you 
> apply Vic's claim; it's "real" if it kicks back! Does S's equation kick 
> back? Depends on who you talk to, unlike EM waves. Real or not, S's 
> equation can be used for calculatons. Doesn't matter what its ontological 
> status is. AG 
>


That's it right there.

the Schrödinger equation does not directly say *what**, exactly, the wave 
function is  [Wikipedia: *Schrödinger_equation]

 
I haven't seen yet where MWI serves any useful purpose.

At least path integrals are used in applications. (But not many worlds.)

@phiipthrift




That MWI entails other, unobservable "worlds" is neither a bug or a 
>> feature, it's just one answer to the measurement problem.  If you have a 
>> better answer, feel free to state it.
>>
>>
>>
>> The math is not the territory.
>>
>>
>> * The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum 
>> mechanical systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum 
>> mechanics include matrix mechanics 
>> , introduced by Werner 
>> Heisenberg , and the path 
>> integral formulation 
>> , developed 
>> chiefly by Richard Feynman 
>> . Paul Dirac 
>>  incorporated matrix mechanics 
>> and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation.
>>
>> The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function of 
>> a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the Schrödinger 
>> equation does not directly say *what**, exactly, the wave function is*. 
>> Interpretations 
>> of quantum mechanics 
>>  address 
>> questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the 
>> underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.
>>
>>
>> Did you write that, or are you quoting without attribution?  Anyway it's 
>> common knowledge on this list.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everythi

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift  wrote:




 https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous

 *Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous 
 precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence*



 Any one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero 
 physical evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the 
 question in metaphysics.

 Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from 
 arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as 
 far as we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the 
 first person under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences 
 today is for 0 universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, 
 or moralised through the universal machine theory of self-reference.

 Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for 
 anything ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the 
 existence of the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is 
 the 
 correct attitude if one believe in such a thing. 

 Bruno


>>> *x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
>>> grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
>>> (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
>>> ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical  
>>> theory*.
>>>
>>> Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical premises 
>>> encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field Equations) may 
>>> be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in instruments, their 
>>> expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not empirical.
>>>
>>> @philipthrift
>>>
>>
>> It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be 
>> applied. However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from 
>> spatial continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG 
>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>> A traditional calculus alternative that could match the 
> "continuity"-appearing  empirical data is fractional/fractal calculus.
>
>
> *A Tutorial Review on Fractal Spacetime and Fractional Calculus*
> International Journal of Theoretical Physics · November 2014
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266398625_A_Tutorial_Review_on_Fractal_Spacetime_and_Fractional_Calculus
>
>
> @philipthrift 
>

Was Fractional Calculus known when E developed GR? AG 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a88412aa-d88f-4318-86ba-ec8bab205197%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick marketing
> exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. Too slick by
> half.
>
>
> What do you think he's selling?
>

His book? Actually, he is selling a particular approach to QM, and
claiming, in no uncertain terms, that his is the only "true" approach. I
take particular exception to his claim that MWI is the SWE and nothing
else. He elides the many additional assumptions that he has to make to get
correspondence with experience, but derides other approaches for making
assumptions! That is just dishonest.

I think Carroll is a good speaker, a good popularizer, and a nice guy.
>

He is certainly a polished speaker, and is probably a nice guy. But that
does not make him right.

>   I feel fortunate to have him representing physics to the public.  He is
> not evangelizing for some particular interpretation and he recognizes that
> there are alternative interpretations of QM even though he favors MWI.
>

Maybe so in his book, but that was not apparent in the lecture.

>
> Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by
> every measure.
>

Bully for him. Debating William Lane Craig is not the height of
science..

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSwD2JdFyQ8vBiZP2ssmO83JVcVseADWMGCCFazb4pAPg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The multiverse is dangerous to science



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 4:23:20 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:53:49 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 8:22:10 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 7 Oct 2019, at 20:49, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous
>
> *Theoretical physicists who say the multiverse exists set a dangerous 
> precedent: science based on zero empirical evidence*
>
>
>
> Any one saying that even one universe exist say something with zero 
> physical evidence. The very expression “physical evidence” is begging the 
> question in metaphysics.
>
> Mechanist metaphysics implies that the physical reality emerges from 
> arithmetic, in a precise way, and nature gives the east same physics, as 
> far as we can judge today, and this without hiding consciousness and the 
> first person under the rug. So, I would say that the empirical evidences 
> today is for 0 universes, but many dreams (computations seen from inside, 
> or moralised through the universal machine theory of self-reference.
>
> Physical evidences are dream-able. They cannot be direct evidence for 
> anything ontological. Einstein, at least, was ware of the mystery of the 
> existence of the physical universe, and took it as a religion, which is 
> the 
> correct attitude if one believe in such a thing. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
 *x emerges* from arithmetic is not grounded, because arithmetic is not 
 grounded. Whatever syntactic specification of arithmetic one starts with 
 (that is at least as expressive as Peano Axioms) has an unfixed semantics 
 ("nonstandard models"). There are other arithmetics for *hyperarithmetical 
  
 theory*.

 Where Jim Baggott gets it wrong; All theories have nonempirical 
 premises encoded in their language. Even though EFE (Einstein Field 
 Equations) may be a useful tool for predictions of data collected in 
 instruments, their expression in terms of a continuous space+time is not 
 empirical.

 @philipthrift

>>>
>>> It could just be a useful approximation in order for calculus to be 
>>> applied. However, experiments have been done, and so far no deviation from 
>>> spatial continuity has been detected. Not sure about time continuity. AG 
>>>

  

>>> A traditional calculus alternative that could match the 
>> "continuity"-appearing  empirical data is fractional/fractal calculus.
>>
>>
>> *A Tutorial Review on Fractal Spacetime and Fractional Calculus*
>> International Journal of Theoretical Physics · November 2014
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266398625_A_Tutorial_Review_on_Fractal_Spacetime_and_Fractional_Calculus
>>
>>
>> @philipthrift 
>>
>
> Was Fractional Calculus known when E developed GR? AG 
>


*Fractal calculus and its geometrical explanation*

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379718311951

Fractal calculus

The fractal 
 calculus 
is relatively new ...


...
@philipthrift

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0f530eae-89e7-441c-b0f3-3a2340d6dbd1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

That MWI entails other, unobservable "worlds" is neither a bug or a
> feature, it's just one answer to the measurement problem. If you have a
> better answer, feel free to state it.
>
>
> Brent
>

MWI, according to Sabine Hossenfelder, is not an answer - in the final
analysis - to the measurement problem

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html

The many world interpretation, now, supposedly does away with the problem
of the quantum measurement and it does this by just saying there isn’t such
a thing as wavefunction collapse. Instead, many worlds people say, every
time you make a measurement, the universe splits into several parallel
worlds, one for each possible measurement outcome. This universe splitting
is also sometimes called branching.

Some people have a problem with the branching because it’s not clear just
exactly when or where it should take place, but I do not think this is a
serious problem, it’s just a matter of definition. No, the real problem is
that after throwing out the measurement postulate, the many worlds
interpretation needs another assumption, that brings the measurement
problem back.

The reason is this. In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a
detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into several
universes. Therefore, if you just ask “what will the detector measure”,
then the answer is “The detector will measure anything that’s possible with
probability 1.”

This, of course, is not what we observe. We observe only one measurement
outcome. The many worlds people explain this as follows. Of course you are
not supposed to calculate the probability for each branch of the detector.
Because when we say detector, we don’t mean all detector branches together.
You should only evaluate the probability relative to the detector in one
specific branch at a time.

That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as reasonable
as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely equivalent
to the measurement postulate. The measurement postulate says: Update
probability at measurement to 100%. The detector definition in many worlds
says: The “Detector” is by definition only the thing in one branch. Now
evaluate probabilities relative to this, which gives you 100% in each
branch. Same thing.

And because it’s the same thing you already know that you cannot derive
this detector definition from the Schrödinger equation. It’s not possible.
What the many worlds people are now trying instead is to derive this
postulate from rational choice theory. But of course that brings back in
macroscopic terms, like actors who make decisions and so on. In other
words, this reference to knowledge is equally in conflict with reductionism
as is the Copenhagen interpretation.

*And that’s why the many worlds interpretation does not solve the
measurement problem* and therefore it is equally troubled as all other
interpretations of quantum mechanics. What’s the trouble with the other
interpretations? We will talk about this some other time. So stay tuned.

@philipthrift

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/8/2019 12:58 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 1:40:33 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 10/8/2019 11:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell
 wrote:

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John
Clark wrote:

As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm
STILL the only one on the list that has actually
read Carroll's new book, but he gave an excellent
Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics
will at least watch that; after all even an
abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a book is
better than no knowledge at all.

Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book
"Something Deeply Hidden"


John K Clark


I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is
more rigorous and less qualitative. I honestly do not
have a yay or nay opinion on this. It is something to
store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum
interpretations are to my thinking unprovable
theoretically and not falsifiable empirically.



I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very
slick marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a
snake oil salesman. Too slick by half.


What do you think he's selling?  I think Carroll is a good
speaker, a good popularizer, and a nice guy. I feel fortunate
to have him representing physics to the public.  He is not
evangelizing for some particular interpretation and he
recognizes that there are alternative interpretations of QM
even though he favors MWI.

Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig
and won by every measure.

Brent


Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga


who can take math and pull out God.

Carroll makes*the big mistake* of a number of physics
"popularizers" today. He takes the mathematical language of a
physical theory (or one version* of that theory, as there are
multiple formulations of quantum theory) and pulls a physical
ontology out of his math.


That's why it's called an "interpretation".  Every physical theory
has an ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you
don't know how to apply the mathematics.


What is "an ontology"? Seems to me this is a red herring; no way to 
find evidence that something is real, as opposed to illusionary, 
unless you apply Vic's claim; it's "real" if it kicks back! Does S's 
equation kick back? Depends on who you talk to, unlike EM waves. Real 
or not, S's equation can be used for calculatons. Doesn't matter what 
its ontological status is. AG


It matters in applying the theory.  In CI you apply the theory by 
evolving a wf forward in time from an initial state.  So the ontology 
includes a "state" which is some initial wf.  But you could do a 
consistent histories calculation in which the ontology includes and 
initial and a final state.  Or a transactional interpretation in which 
there  is an initial and final measurement result.


Brent


That MWI entails other, unobservable "worlds" is neither a bug or
a feature, it's just one answer to the measurement problem.  If
you have a better answer, feel free to state it.




The math is not the territory.


* The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum
mechanical systems and make predictions. The other formulations
of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics
, introduced by
Werner Heisenberg
, and the path
integral formulation
,
developed chiefly by Richard Feynman
. Paul Dirac
 incorporated matrix
mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation.

The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave
function of a system and how it changes dynamically in time.
However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say
/*what*/*, exactly, the wave function is*. Interpretations of
quantum mechanics
 address
questions such as what the relation is between the wave function,
the underlying reality, and the results of experimental me

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 5:01:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
> It [ontology] matters in applying the theory.  In CI you apply the theory 
> by evolving a wf forward in time from an initial state.  So the ontology 
> includes a "state" which is some initial wf.  But you could do a consistent 
> histories calculation in which the ontology includes and initial and a 
> final state.  Or a transactional interpretation in which there  is an 
> initial and final measurement result.
>
> Brent
>



I see where "histories ontology" is used in computational QM, but where is 
"worlds ontology" used (in QM software projects)?

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1fadbca9-eeb7-479b-99bc-70ade0546193%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/8/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 10/8/2019 11:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell
 wrote:

On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John
Clark wrote:

As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm
STILL the only one on the list that has actually
read Carroll's new book, but he gave an excellent
Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics
will at least watch that; after all even an
abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a book is
better than no knowledge at all.

Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book
"Something Deeply Hidden"


John K Clark


I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is
more rigorous and less qualitative. I honestly do not
have a yay or nay opinion on this. It is something to
store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum
interpretations are to my thinking unprovable
theoretically and not falsifiable empirically.



I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very
slick marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a
snake oil salesman. Too slick by half.


What do you think he's selling?  I think Carroll is a good
speaker, a good popularizer, and a nice guy. I feel fortunate
to have him representing physics to the public.  He is not
evangelizing for some particular interpretation and he
recognizes that there are alternative interpretations of QM
even though he favors MWI.

Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig
and won by every measure.

Brent


Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga


who can take math and pull out God.

Carroll makes*the big mistake* of a number of physics
"popularizers" today. He takes the mathematical language of a
physical theory (or one version* of that theory, as there are
multiple formulations of quantum theory) and pulls a physical
ontology out of his math.


That's why it's called an "interpretation".  Every physical theory
has an ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you
don't know how to apply the mathematics.  That MWI entails other,
unobservable "worlds" is neither a bug or a feature, it's just one
answer to the measurement problem. If you have a better answer,
feel free to state it.




The math is not the territory.


* The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum
mechanical systems and make predictions. The other formulations
of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics
, introduced by
Werner Heisenberg
, and the path
integral formulation
,
developed chiefly by Richard Feynman
. Paul Dirac
 incorporated matrix
mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation.

The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave
function of a system and how it changes dynamically in time.
However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say
/*what*/*, exactly, the wave function is*. Interpretations of
quantum mechanics
 address
questions such as what the relation is between the wave function,
the underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.


Did you write that, or are you quoting without attribution? Anyway
it's common knowledge on this list.

Brent




That's from Wikipedia again (same quote from the Schrödinger equation 
article posted several times before). That " it's common knowledge on 
this list" doesn't appear that way at all, where an undisputed 
catechism is assumed on what is real (QM-wise).


I just don't see how Many Worlds ontology tells us "how to apply the 
mathematics": We don't observe a bunch of worlds, so how can it be 
applied?


It tells us what we see and record is what in recorded by entanglement 
with the environment and ourselves and so solves the Schrodinger cat 
conundrum.  Whether you then adopt an axiom that says the the other 
branches predicted by the Schro

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 2:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick
marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil
salesman. Too slick by half.

What do you think he's selling?

His book? Actually, he is selling a particular approach to QM, and
claiming, in no uncertain terms, that his is the only "true" approach.

No. He explicitly says (at 14:45) he's going to explain the
interpretation he favors but there are others which he discusses in his
book.

I take particular exception to his claim that MWI is the SWE and
nothing else. He elides the many additional assumptions that he has to
make to get correspondence with experience, but derides other
approaches for making assumptions! That is just dishonest.

What additional assumptions do you mean?

I think Carroll is a good speaker, a good popularizer, and a nice guy.

He is certainly a polished speaker, and is probably a nice guy. But
that does not make him right.

I feel fortunate to have him representing physics to the
public. He is not evangelizing for some particular interpretation
and he recognizes that there are alternative interpretations of QM
even though he favors MWI.

Maybe so in his book, but that was not apparent in the lecture.

Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and
won by every measure.

Bully for him. Debating William Lane Craig is not the height of
science..

No but several scientists have not done well at it, including Vic.

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 2:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick marketing
>> exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil salesman. Too slick by
>> half.
>>
>>
>> What do you think he's selling?
>>
>
> His book? Actually, he is selling a particular approach to QM, and
> claiming, in no uncertain terms, that his is the only "true" approach.
>
>
> No.  He explicitly says (at 14:45) he's going to explain the
> interpretation he favors but there are others which he discusses in his
> book.
>

I was talking about my impression of the lecture, not of his book (which I
haven't read).

I take particular exception to his claim that MWI is the SWE and nothing
> else. He elides the many additional assumptions that he has to make to get
> correspondence with experience, but derides other approaches for making
> assumptions! That is just dishonest.
>
>
> What additional assumptions do you mean?
>

What assumptions does he have to make to get a probability interpretation?
Probability is not an evident property of the SE. Like many approaches to
probability in Everett, he has to assume decoherence to distinguishable
branches to get anywhere. But that relies on using the Born rule to justify
ignoring branches with low amplitude -- the notorious "trace over
environmental degrees of freedom". Sean's "self-locating uncertainty" is
not well-defined. In the lecture he hints that the observer is uncertain
about the fate of the cat until he opens the box -- until then he is
uncertain of which branch he is on. But given the timescale of decoherence,
he has branched within 10^{-20} sec, so the is no longer any "self-locating
uncertainty" -- he is definitely on one branch or the other, he just
doesn't know which. And that is just classical probability due to lack of
knowledge -- nothing quantum about it. In another interview, he does
suggest that the "self-locating uncertainty" lasts only until decoherence
reaches the observer, at which time copies become entangled within each
branch. Now if you can think relevant thoughts in 10^{-20} sec, then his
argument might make some sense. But it fails to convince.

I think Carroll is a good speaker, a good popularizer, and a nice guy.
>>
>
> He is certainly a polished speaker, and is probably a nice guy. But that
> does not make him right.
>
>
>>   I feel fortunate to have him representing physics to the public.  He is
>> not evangelizing for some particular interpretation and he recognizes that
>> there are alternative interpretations of QM even though he favors MWI.
>>
>
> Maybe so in his book, but that was not apparent in the lecture.
>
>
>>
>> Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and won by
>> every measure.
>>
>
> Bully for him. Debating William Lane Craig is not the height of
> science..
>
>
> No but several scientists have not done well at it, including Vic.
>

That is probably an interest of yours. I fail to share it, and it is not
science. There will always be people who fail to be convinced by science or
by argument, and debating skills are not a prerequisite for good science.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTFyqvG15LhJXGZPEkt-qReci2_Ws%3DXdqSCRrjsnjZfDQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

That MWI entails other, unobservable "worlds" is neither a bug or
a feature, it's just one answer to the measurement problem.  If
you have a better answer, feel free to state it.


Brent




MWI, according to Sabine Hossenfelder, is not an answer - in the final 
analysis - to the measurement problem


http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html


The many world interpretation, now, supposedly does away with the 
problem of the quantum measurement and it does this by just saying 
there isn’t such a thing as wavefunction collapse. Instead, many 
worlds people say, every time you make a measurement, the universe 
splits into several parallel worlds, one for each possible measurement 
outcome. This universe splitting is also sometimes called branching.


Some people have a problem with the branching because it’s not clear 
just exactly when or where it should take place, but I do not think 
this is a serious problem, it’s just a matter of definition. No, the 
real problem is that after throwing out the measurement postulate, the 
many worlds interpretation needs another assumption, that brings the 
measurement problem back.


The reason is this. In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a 
detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into 
several universes. Therefore, if you just ask “what will the detector 
measure”, then the answer is “The detector will measure anything 
that’s possible with probability 1.”


This, of course, is not what we observe. We observe only one 
measurement outcome.


The implication is that the above two sentences are contrasting. But 
nobody asks "what will the detector measure".  The question asked by the 
experimenter is "which measurement outcome will the detector detect", 
which is perfectly consistent with "we observe only one measurement outcome"


The many worlds people explain this as follows. Of course you are not 
supposed to calculate the probability for each branch of the detector. 
Because when we say detector, we don’t mean all detector branches 
together. You should only evaluate the probability relative to the 
detector in one specific branch at a time.


I can't even parse that.  You are supposed to calculate the probability 
of each possible measurement outcome and those characterize the branch.  
It is NOT calculating "each branch of the detector" unless you are 
defining those "branches" by what the measurement outcome is.




That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as 
reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically 
entirely equivalent to the measurement postulate.


It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means.  It is 
instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation and not 
a different theory (as GRW is).  It's different from the measurement 
postulate in that the measurement postulate says the wave function 
instantaneously changes to match the observed measured value.  MWI says 
those other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of the 
Hilbert space and you are only observing one.  Those are not "logically" 
the same.


The measurement postulate says: Update probability at measurement to 
100%. The detector definition in many worlds says: The “Detector” is 
by definition only the thing in one branch.


What does "only the thing in one branch mean". In MWI there are 
projections of the detector in subspaces which differ only by the value 
detected.


Now evaluate probabilities relative to this, which gives you 100% in 
each branch. Same thing.


And because it’s the same thing you already know that you cannot 
derive this detector definition from the Schrödinger equation.


?? You can't derive the definition of any physical object from the 
Schroedinger equation.  You put in the Hamiltonian of the object and 
whatever it interacts with and the initial ray in Hilbert space and the 
Schroedinger equation tells you how it evolves


It’s not possible. What the many worlds people are now trying instead 
is to derive this postulate from rational choice theory. But of course 
that brings back in macroscopic terms, like actors who make decisions 
and so on. In other words, this reference to knowledge is equally in 
conflict with reductionism as is the Copenhagen interpretation.


I agree with that point.  But once you suppose a probabilistic 
interpretation of the Hilbert space, then Gleason's theorem implies the 
Born rule.  That still leaves a small gap in saying why it has 
probabilistic interpretation at all.  Whether "self-locating 
uncertainty" is an adequate answer seems to me to require more analysis 
of human thought; although showing the brain is a quasi-classical 
information processor goes a long way.


Brent



*And that’s why the many worlds interpretation does not solve the 
measurement probl

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 10/8/2019 4:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:


On 10/8/2019 2:41 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 4:35 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very
slick marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a
snake oil salesman. Too slick by half.


What do you think he's selling?


His book? Actually, he is selling a particular approach to QM,
and claiming, in no uncertain terms, that his is the only "true"
approach.


No.  He explicitly says (at 14:45) he's going to explain the
interpretation he favors but there are others which he discusses
in his book.


I was talking about my impression of the lecture, not of his book 
(which I haven't read).


That's what I'm talking about; that's why I gave the time stamp of where 
he says it in the lecture.



I take particular exception to his claim that MWI is the SWE and
nothing else. He elides the many additional assumptions that he
has to make to get correspondence with experience, but derides
other approaches for making assumptions! That is just dishonest.


What additional assumptions do you mean?


What assumptions does he have to make to get a probability 
interpretation? Probability is not an evident property of the SE. Like 
many approaches to probability in Everett, he has to assume 
decoherence to distinguishable branches to get anywhere. But that 
relies on using the Born rule to justify ignoring branches with low 
amplitude


The low amplitude branches aren't ignored.  Do you mean cross-terms in 
the density matrix?


-- the notorious "trace over environmental degrees of freedom". Sean's 
"self-locating uncertainty" is not well-defined.


I tend to agree with you there.  But if you assume that the human brain 
is a classical information processor of limited capacity I think you 
could get there.


In the lecture he hints that the observer is uncertain about the fate 
of the cat until he opens the box -- until then he is uncertain of 
which branch he is on. But given the timescale of decoherence, he has 
branched within 10^{-20} sec, so the is no longer any "self-locating 
uncertainty" -- he is definitely on one branch or the other, he just 
doesn't know which. And that is just classical probability due to lack 
of knowledge -- nothing quantum about it. In another interview, he 
does suggest that the "self-locating uncertainty" lasts only until 
decoherence reaches the observer, at which time copies become 
entangled within each branch. Now if you can think relevant thoughts 
in 10^{-20} sec, then his argument might make some sense. But it fails 
to convince.


So you're faulting him for not calling 1e-20sec zero? Seems nit-picky.  
I see the problem as sloppy introduction of "the observer" harking back 
to CI.  If observers are quasi-classical (no funny stuff in microtubles) 
then it should be enough to talk about uncertainty in the location of 
the geiger counter or the environment, but I understand Sean is trying 
to explain why, according to Everett, people don't see the superposition.






I think Carroll is a good speaker, a good popularizer, and a
nice guy.


He is certainly a polished speaker, and is probably a nice guy.
But that does not make him right.

  I feel fortunate to have him representing physics to the
public.  He is not evangelizing for some particular
interpretation and he recognizes that there are alternative
interpretations of QM even though he favors MWI.


Maybe so in his book, but that was not apparent in the lecture.


Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig
and won by every measure.


Bully for him. Debating William Lane Craig is not the height of
science..


No but several scientists have not done well at it, including Vic.


That is probably an interest of yours.


It was a big part of the interests on this list when Vic was writing his 
books.



I fail to share it, and it is not science.


As Vic said, "Science isn't everything, but it's about everything."

There will always be people who fail to be convinced by science or by 
argument, and debating skills are not a prerequisite for good science.


No, but they can be important in communicating good science to 
people...and we could certainly use more of that.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 4:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>> What additional assumptions do you mean?
>>
>
> What assumptions does he have to make to get a probability interpretation?
> Probability is not an evident property of the SE. Like many approaches to
> probability in Everett, he has to assume decoherence to distinguishable
> branches to get anywhere. But that relies on using the Born rule to justify
> ignoring branches with low amplitude
>
> The low amplitude branches aren't ignored.  Do you mean cross-terms in the
> density matrix?
>

Explain to me how these are functionally different from low amplitude
branches.


> -- the notorious "trace over environmental degrees of freedom". Sean's
> "self-locating uncertainty" is not well-defined.
>
>
> I tend to agree with you there.  But if you assume that the human brain is
> a classical information processor of limited capacity I think you could get
> there.
>

Only at the price of re-introducing the human observer into your exposition
of QM. I thought that was the cardinal sin of the CI, and here Sean is
bringing it back into Everett

In the lecture he hints that the observer is uncertain about the fate of
> the cat until he opens the box -- until then he is uncertain of which
> branch he is on. But given the timescale of decoherence, he has branched
> within 10^{-20} sec, so the is no longer any "self-locating uncertainty" --
> he is definitely on one branch or the other, he just doesn't know which.
> And that is just classical probability due to lack of knowledge -- nothing
> quantum about it. In another interview, he does suggest that the
> "self-locating uncertainty" lasts only until decoherence reaches the
> observer, at which time copies become entangled within each branch. Now if
> you can think relevant thoughts in 10^{-20} sec, then his argument might
> make some sense. But it fails to convince.
>
>
> So you're faulting him for not calling 1e-20sec zero?
>

No. I am not faulting him for not calling it zero. I am faulting him for
calling something that is uncertain in any quantum sense for 10^{-20} sec
significant for the interpretation of probabilities.


> Seems nit-picky.  I see the problem as sloppy introduction of "the
> observer" harking back to CI.
>

Yes, that is a point I have made.


> If observers are quasi-classical (no funny stuff in microtubles) then it
> should be enough to talk about uncertainty in the location of the geiger
> counter or the environment, but I understand Sean is trying to explain why,
> according to Everett, people don't see the superposition.
>

That is achieved by decoherence and the preferred pointer basis. No need to
introduce observers and self-locating uncertainty.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS0B%3DUBOUD-erZybbGMG86f%3D_Dd8k6wRYxTKqMpuv%2B-1w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:24 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as reasonable
> as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely equivalent
> to the measurement postulate.
>
>
> It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means.  It is
> instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation and not a
> different theory (as GRW is).  It's different from the measurement
> postulate in that the measurement postulate says the wave function
> instantaneously changes to match the observed measured value.  MWI says
> those other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of the
> Hilbert space and you are only observing one.  Those are not "logically"
> the same.
>

What do you mean by "logically equivalent"? It seems to me that if two
assumptions fulfil the same explanatory role -- they are functionally
equivalent -- then it is sensible to call them "logically equivalent". They
fulfil the same logical role in the argument.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRthEzZ6MQYQYzJfzZV6JCa5ut9o4qouRN9gUfFEiCtww%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 5:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 10/8/2019 4:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

What additional assumptions do you mean?

What assumptions does he have to make to get a probability
interpretation? Probability is not an evident property of the SE.
Like many approaches to probability in Everett, he has to assume
decoherence to distinguishable branches to get anywhere. But that
relies on using the Born rule to justify ignoring branches with
low amplitude

The low amplitude branches aren't ignored. Do you mean
cross-terms in the density matrix?

Explain to me how these are functionally different from low amplitude
branches.

The branches are projections of the universal Hilbert ray onto
(approximately) orthogonal subspaces corresponding to the preferred
basis. Cross terms are what make them approximate. The cross-terms
supposedly go to zero when you compute the reduced density matrix, but
the diagonal terms don't go to zero...they measure the probability of
the branches, including branches with low probability.

-- the notorious "trace over environmental degrees of freedom".
Sean's "self-locating uncertainty" is not well-defined.

I tend to agree with you there. But if you assume that the human
brain is a classical information processor of limited capacity I
think you could get there.

Only at the price of re-introducing the human observer into your
exposition of QM. I thought that was the cardinal sin of the CI, and
here Sean is bringing it back into Everett

Well, if you're going to explain why we experience a classical world,
you're going to have to say something about experience. To say it's
information processing in the brain sounds pretty good to me.

In the lecture he hints that the observer is uncertain about the
fate of the cat until he opens the box -- until then he is
uncertain of which branch he is on. But given the timescale of
decoherence, he has branched within 10^{-20} sec, so the is no
longer any "self-locating uncertainty" -- he is definitely on one
branch or the other, he just doesn't know which. And that is just
classical probability due to lack of knowledge -- nothing quantum
about it. In another interview, he does suggest that the
"self-locating uncertainty" lasts only until decoherence reaches
the observer, at which time copies become entangled within each
branch. Now if you can think relevant thoughts in 10^{-20} sec,
then his argument might make some sense. But it fails to
convince.

So you're faulting him for not calling 1e-20sec zero?

No. I am not faulting him for not calling it zero. I am faulting him
for calling something that is uncertain in any quantum sense for
10^{-20} sec significant for the interpretation of probabilities.

But it's relevant to showing MWI is consistent with the experimenter not
knowing which "world" he is in. He might not look at the data for a long
time.

Brent

Seems nit-picky. I see the problem as sloppy introduction of "the
observer" harking back to CI.

Yes, that is a point I have made.

If observers are quasi-classical (no funny stuff in microtubles)
then it should be enough to talk about uncertainty in the location
of the geiger counter or the environment, but I understand Sean is
trying to explain why, according to Everett, people don't see the
superposition.

That is achieved by decoherence and the preferred pointer basis. No
need to introduce observers and self-locating uncertainty.

Bruce
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS0B%3DUBOUD-erZybbGMG86f%3D_Dd8k6wRYxTKqMpuv%2B-1w%40mail.gmail.com
.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:24 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as
reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically
entirely equivalent to the measurement postulate.

It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means. It is
instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation
and not a different theory (as GRW is). It's different from the
measurement postulate in that the measurement postulate says the
wave function instantaneously changes to match the observed
measured value. MWI says those other measured values obtain in
other orthogonal subspaces of the Hilbert space and you are only
observing one. Those are not "logically" the same.

What do you mean by "logically equivalent"? It seems to me that if two
assumptions fulfil the same explanatory role -- they are functionally
equivalent -- then it is sensible to call them "logically equivalent".
They fulfil the same logical role in the argument.

I mean X=>Y and Y=>X. But MWI entails some things that CI doesn't and
vice versa. In the C60 buckyball experiment CI doesn't give a very
satisfactory account, because it doesn't have a good definition of
"measure". MWI introduced the idea of decoherence to fulfill that role
without actually requiring a human observer.

Brent

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:36 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 5:03 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:49 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2019 4:21 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 9:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What additional assumptions do you mean?
>>>
>>
>> What assumptions does he have to make to get a probability
>> interpretation? Probability is not an evident property of the SE. Like many
>> approaches to probability in Everett, he has to assume decoherence to
>> distinguishable branches to get anywhere. But that relies on using the Born
>> rule to justify ignoring branches with low amplitude
>>
>> The low amplitude branches aren't ignored.  Do you mean cross-terms in
>> the density matrix?
>>
>
> Explain to me how these are functionally different from low amplitude
> branches.
>
>
> The branches are projections of the universal Hilbert ray onto
> (approximately) orthogonal subspaces corresponding to the preferred basis.
> Cross terms are what make them approximate.  The cross-terms supposedly go
> to zero when you compute the reduced density matrix, but the diagonal terms
> don't go to zero...they measure the probability of the branches, including
> branches with low probability.
>

It seems to me that that is what I said.


> -- the notorious "trace over environmental degrees of freedom". Sean's
>> "self-locating uncertainty" is not well-defined.
>>
>>
>> I tend to agree with you there.  But if you assume that the human brain
>> is a classical information processor of limited capacity I think you could
>> get there.
>>
>
> Only at the price of re-introducing the human observer into your
> exposition of QM. I thought that was the cardinal sin of the CI, and here
> Sean is bringing it back into Everett
>
>
> Well, if you're going to explain why we experience a classical world,
> you're going to have to say something about experience.  To say it's
> information processing in the brain sounds pretty good to me.
>

But that is what he needs in order to introduce probabilities -- and that
is just as circular as the Deutsch-Wallace use of decision theory -- both
need observers to have a notion of probability.


> In the lecture he hints that the observer is uncertain about the fate of
>> the cat until he opens the box -- until then he is uncertain of which
>> branch he is on. But given the timescale of decoherence, he has branched
>> within 10^{-20} sec, so the is no longer any "self-locating uncertainty" --
>> he is definitely on one branch or the other, he just doesn't know which.
>> And that is just classical probability due to lack of knowledge -- nothing
>> quantum about it. In another interview, he does suggest that the
>> "self-locating uncertainty" lasts only until decoherence reaches the
>> observer, at which time copies become entangled within each branch. Now if
>> you can think relevant thoughts in 10^{-20} sec, then his argument might
>> make some sense. But it fails to convince.
>>
>>
>> So you're faulting him for not calling 1e-20sec zero?
>>
>
> No. I am not faulting him for not calling it zero. I am faulting him for
> calling something that is uncertain in any quantum sense for 10^{-20} sec
> significant for the interpretation of probabilities.
>
> But it's relevant to showing MWI is consistent with the experimenter not
> knowing which "world" he is in. He might not look at the data for a long
> time.
>

Exactly. So his "uncertainty" is purely classical. That is not an
explanation of quantum probabilities. Remember, the Everettian promise is
that the concept of "an observer" is irrelevant for understanding the
theory -- it is all in the SWE. The theory provides its own
explanation..

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQnC%3DA2q2T8dCDbmCkG%3D6AA91u24rN4pPb%2BnGfMKivzEA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:24 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as
>> reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely
>> equivalent to the measurement postulate.
>>
>>
>> It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means.  It is
>> instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation and not a
>> different theory (as GRW is).  It's different from the measurement
>> postulate in that the measurement postulate says the wave function
>> instantaneously changes to match the observed measured value.  MWI says
>> those other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of the
>> Hilbert space and you are only observing one.  Those are not "logically"
>> the same.
>>
>
> What do you mean by "logically equivalent"? It seems to me that if two
> assumptions fulfil the same explanatory role -- they are functionally
> equivalent -- then it is sensible to call them "logically equivalent". They
> fulfil the same logical role in the argument.
>
>
> I mean X=>Y and Y=>X.  But MWI entails some things that CI doesn't and
> vice versa.  In the C60 buckyball experiment CI doesn't give a very
> satisfactory account, because it doesn't have a good definition of
> "measure".  MWI introduced the idea of decoherence to fulfill that role
> without actually requiring a human observer.
>

That explanation of "measurement" is every bit as available to the CI
theorist as to the Everettian theorist. As Peter Woit pointed out a while
back, there is not much different between Everett and Copenhagen. Both can
work with "its quantum all the way down", and develop the same
understanding of "measurement". There is nothing particularly "many worlds"
in the notion of decoherence.

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLRdzxCHbcn4uqDN-%2B5wpu_v1toD8H7axQ1gEPogD2CqUA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

2019-10-08 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 10/8/2019 5:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
> wrote:

On 10/8/2019 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:24 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything
List mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> wrote:

On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just
as reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is
logically entirely equivalent to the measurement postulate.

It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means. It is
instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an
interpretation and not a different theory (as GRW is). It's
different from the measurement postulate in that the
measurement postulate says the wave function instantaneously
changes to match the observed measured value. MWI says those
other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of
the Hilbert space and you are only observing one. Those are
not "logically" the same.

What do you mean by "logically equivalent"? It seems to me that
if two assumptions fulfil the same explanatory role -- they are
functionally equivalent -- then it is sensible to call them
"logically equivalent". They fulfil the same logical role in the
argument.

I mean X=>Y and Y=>X. But MWI entails some things that CI doesn't
and vice versa. In the C60 buckyball experiment CI doesn't give a
very satisfactory account, because it doesn't have a good
definition of "measure". MWI introduced the idea of decoherence to
fulfill that role without actually requiring a human observer.

That explanation of "measurement" is every bit as available to the CI
theorist as to the Everettian theorist. As Peter Woit pointed out a
while back, there is not much different between Everett and
Copenhagen. Both can work with "its quantum all the way down", and
develop the same understanding of "measurement". There is nothing
particularly "many worlds" in the notion of decoherence.

But at some point where MWI says we can ignore the other "worlds", CI
says the wf collapses...implying collapse is a physical process. I
actually like the QBist idea that collapse is just something we do to
our world description.

Brent

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-08 Thread smitra

On 04-10-2019 23:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 10/3/2019 11:49 PM, smitra wrote:

On 04-10-2019 00:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

This really is a well enough explained question.

Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up
the total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with
the probability of that branch. This works the way it always works
in quantum mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing
controversial, and nothing interesting.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620
The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is
probably

the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the
energy in each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there
a
zillions of branchings per second throughout the visible universe,
the
energy rapidly is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does
not

make much sense. Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary
quantum mechanics -- I have no idea what Sabine is referring to here.

The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is
simply conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching
interactions. How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe
ideas do not actually help here. And appeals to energy non
conservation in non-stationary universes are beside the point --
Quantum mechanics is not GR.

The block universe point of view makes this a non-issue. You get into
trouble by assuming something like presentalism, like a hidden
assumption about the energy of one instant being transferred to the
next instant.

But that's what energy conservation is.

Energy conservation is also consistent with block time, so energy
conservation alone does not single out the interpretation of itself as a
physical transfer of energy from one instant to another instant. One can
choose to interpret it like that, but one can for example just as well
assume a multiverse of all time snaps of all possible universes with
different energy contents, the laws of physics are then nothing more
than a mathematical statement that tells you that universe X and
universe Y have the same information content giving a prescription of
how to compute things in Y given the state of X. Nothing is then
actually physically transferred from X to Y.

If you drop this assumption and simply take thew block universe point
of view where all the instances already exist out there, then there is
no problem to begin with.

Do all the branches then exist equally? in which case you've
abandoned energy conservation and now you need to explain why it
appears to be conserved on every branch.

If under a time evolution a state X becomes a superposition of states
Y1, Y2, ..., Yn, then the block time interpretation of that is that Y1,
Y2,., Yn and X are all different universes and that the information
in X can be retrieved not from a single universe Y_i, but it's
distributed over the different universes Y1,...Yn. If all the Y_n have
well defined and equal energies then these energies are equal to that of
state X. The information about the energy in state X is then present in
each state Y_k separately.

Saibal

Re: Sean Carroll's Google talk about his book

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 2:48 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2019 5:47 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2019 5:07 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:24 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 10/8/2019 2:59 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> That sounds reasonable. Indeed, it is reasonable. It is just as
>>> reasonable as the measurement postulate. In fact, it is logically entirely
>>> equivalent to the measurement postulate.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not clear here what "logically" equivalent means.  It is
>>> instrumentally equivalent...which is why it's an interpretation and not a
>>> different theory (as GRW is).  It's different from the measurement
>>> postulate in that the measurement postulate says the wave function
>>> instantaneously changes to match the observed measured value.  MWI says
>>> those other measured values obtain in other orthogonal subspaces of the
>>> Hilbert space and you are only observing one.  Those are not "logically"
>>> the same.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by "logically equivalent"? It seems to me that if two
>> assumptions fulfil the same explanatory role -- they are functionally
>> equivalent -- then it is sensible to call them "logically equivalent". They
>> fulfil the same logical role in the argument.
>>
>>
>> I mean X=>Y and Y=>X.  But MWI entails some things that CI doesn't and
>> vice versa.  In the C60 buckyball experiment CI doesn't give a very
>> satisfactory account, because it doesn't have a good definition of
>> "measure".  MWI introduced the idea of decoherence to fulfill that role
>> without actually requiring a human observer.
>>
>
> That explanation of "measurement" is every bit as available to the CI
> theorist as to the Everettian theorist. As Peter Woit pointed out a while
> back, there is not much different between Everett and Copenhagen. Both can
> work with "its quantum all the way down", and develop the same
> understanding of "measurement". There is nothing particularly "many worlds"
> in the notion of decoherence.
>
>
> But at some point where MWI says we can ignore the other "worlds", CI says
> the wf collapses...implying collapse is a physical process.
>

Maybe the difference is just a metaphysical quibble -- and I eschew
metaphysical quibbles. :-)

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLR7%3DLJT7P7zMYBm2TMnVpC_S62i_qafRqiqb-oiyAgU-Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Yes, it's true. Theoretical physics has become a lunatic asylum.

2019-10-08 Thread smitra

On 04-10-2019 23:36, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

On 10/4/2019 12:03 AM, smitra wrote:

On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift
wrote:

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell
wrote:

This really is a well enough explained question.

Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the
total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the
probability of that branch. This works the way it always works in
quantum mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing
controversial, and nothing interesting.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620

[1]

The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is
probably

make much sense. Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary
quantum mechanics -- I have no idea what Sabine is referring to here.

Bruce

Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the
recently published Italian version:

"Deluded by Math"

Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility.

Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others
doing.

Yes, sometimes she gets very sloppy in her thinking and goes with the
conventional arguments rather than thinking things through. But, at
least she does challenge the status quo on many occasions. The
contrary voice is often needed.

Bruce

She is a prophet of a find in two regards:

THE END OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS AS WE KNOW IT

https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it-20180827/
(the transition from conventional mathematics to

programmatic/computing structures)

and the delusion/confusion of today's theoretical physicists with
math, leading a both quantum and cosmological multiple universes.

But her nonsensical probability argument where as worlds branch (then
branch again, and again) the descendant worlds get 1/2 the matter and
energy of their parent, which means we should have 0 right now.

(Now she could argue that one starts with 0 matter and energy from
the

beginning, so it's 0 all the way down.)

The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined
energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the
expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value
will need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is
not crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is
correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models
lead to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And
because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate
ourselves in a particular time period.

And with finite information in the universe there is not distinction
between recurrences and hence there are no recurrences.

Yes, but there will also be imperfect recurrences where the difference
will go unnoticed for an observer until a measurement is made. You can
then have an effective splitting in single world collapse theories. and
each outcome will have a certain probability that corresponds to the
relative frequency at which different outcomes will occur in a large
time period.

Saibal

Superposition Misinterpreted